Nexum: Living Roman law, and why we are all in Prison!

Originally posted by JakiusFogg




There's those Laurel leaves again!

Hmmm, they look more like Olive leaves to me, complete with the drupe. Thus, it's a nice try, but no banana...attention to detail is imperative when proposing something such as this and while I generally agree with your premise, if you get the simple things wrong then how can I trust you regarding the more complicated?

The graphics are artistic interpretation of the subject, and are secondary in this thread to the subject matter. For if you believe that the SPQR logo citing on the wikipedia site is the true representation of the motif of the Senate and people of Rome then you're most mistaken.

The premise was only to demonstrate in simple terms for those that don't want to read, the possible link in symbolism between ancient order and new. And not representative of the content. A cursory view of the Rothschild shield for example, will show nothing Roman about it.

As I say this is my theory, analyzed with lateral thinking and a law dictionary. I don;t ask you to trust anythig but your own heart,

And you come back to me with those laurel leaves look like olives to me

Well sir, keep your banana. because if that was as far as you were willing to go in this thread then it will most likely have been green.

I am willing to go further and as I said it is an interesting premise. However, attention to detail is necessary when applied to the Law (as you must well know, seeing as you are providing us with assessments) and when the detail is overlooked so readily it rightfully gives me concern about the other details.

reply to post by JakiusFogg


So, the plan is to become a "free man" by buying out your debt to the crown. How much would that debt be worth? Methinks far more than the average slave could afford. Would this not just create another tier in society - another set of have and have-nots? At the top would be TPTB and the very rich, then those who could afford to buy up their debt, and those who havent a hope in hell of ever being able to afford to buy their freedom.

And if I were lucky enough to be able to pay off my masters for my own freedom, I would then have to find the money to buy my childrens debt too ?

I didnt agree to be owned when I was born ... why should I work like an ox to buy back what was already mine.

reply to post by katseyes


Well this is the lynch pin and the question I am posing.

Currently the "share" of national debt in the UK is around GBP 36,300 per person.

No yes that is a lot of money, and well outside the means of most people to pay all at once. However we have been paying taxes since we started working, not to mention all the VAT and duties paid on goods and services.

I am willing to bet that if this premise could be proven to be valid. that "free man" sun would be reached well before the statutory retirement age of 60 / 65.

In fact should a person on average wage be paying around GBP 300 a month in Tax NI VAT and Duty. that figure is reached in 10 years. so freedom can be achieved before the age of 30. Which means (if true) 35 years of tax free living until retirement. Meaning that the money that would ordinarily go to the coffers, could go into a national saving scheme for retirement. which in turn would reduce the burden on the public funds for pensions.

But the government is not going to tell you this, if this figure exists. (why turn off a cash cow?) and as always the maxim, ignorance of the law is no defense, regardless of how unethical it is.

However I suspect that more likely would be the figure would be the share per person of the active workforce, and not the population as a whole. But it is a interesting concept to say the least.

reply to post by aorAki


Thats the beauty about theory. it is just that theory. It is up to you you read, analyse, add too and detract from. but I am not asking you to accept it matter of fact. I am presenting this as a working hypothesis, not a statement of fact.

As was said in my very first paragraph,

Please review this and comment as you see fit.

This is my theory...

Should you be so concerned on the minor details as whether a graphic representation that was supplement to and in no way underpins the main subject and not intended to be statement of being, but more over show a potential tacit link. Are Laurel or Olive leaves. Then it's wonder you missed that small detail.

reply to post by JakiusFogg


Ok - so if this were possible, you could buy back your freedom between the ages of 30 and 65.

IF you are lucky enough to have well paid, secure job. How many of us can say that this day and age.

As I asked in my last post, would it not just create two tiers of citizen - on one level those who can afford to free themselves, and below that the "lifetime" slaves who , for whatever reason and personal situation could never hope to buy back their freedom? An underclass .

And what is to stop the government moving the goalposts by increasing the national debt to keep us in servitude a bit longer?

reply to post by katseyes


Kats,

Maybe this is the difference between the UK and US tax system. I am not sure. I dont know the US system

Tax and National Insurance is deducted at source. via the PAYE system. So you are right in that those people that earn more, pay more tax physically, and so theoretically those would be the ones that would reach this threshold first.

But does this not add incentive (if this was rolled out as a full government program) for people in lower paid jobs to get training and seeking "better" employment. There always will be the people who are just happy to work a day and get paid a day. Others that prefer not to work at all.

But I cannot see this being such a program, and that the government (should it exist) would want to keep the populace as dumb about it as possible. to keep them generating revenue after the threshold point.

As for a two tier society, as things currently well maybe, those that are aware and those that are not.

However we have to be careful about what you are free from, and what being a free man entails. In this method as subject to the crown, you would still have to adhere to legislation, the only part that would change is that you mission as a revenue service vessel would be at an end. The question you have to ask yourself, is whether you still wnat to contribute to local government. That brings up the FMOTL concept of contract law. and again licence fees. etc etc etc there are so many things it's difficult to know where to start.But at least with legal status as a free citizen, you would have the right to opt out. rather than having dominion put upon you as chattel.

but as for the above. No one said life was fair. and I am not suggesting that this is a socialist concept for the people by the people. if anything this is more capitalist, and self centric.

I had a thought last night whilst half asleep. How could a link between the people / govenrment and seizure by a central bank be shown.

Well, working of the concept that registration of birth is an entry into a company list of assets. there must have been a trigger linked closely to the need for this, and the central bank.

Registration at birth does no such thing, Registration does not hand over ownership and in any case a human can not be owned or be property, slavery is illegal. Also a common freeman misconception is that the state is a company. States and government offices are by the legal definition of the word, corporations: they are an incorporated group of people that can act in law as a single entity. Such legal constructs are known as legal/corporate or artificial persons. To raise funds the government issue bonds. likewise private businesses that are incorporated issue share. They are both investments but apart from that do not have much else in common. Under private corporate law, a company owes a duty to act in its shareholders interests. As government bonds are not shares, the state has no such obligation.

Blacks does not list the word must. But it does list the word may

may, vb, 3 Loosly, is require to; shall; must - in dozens of cases courts have held may to be synonymous with shall or must, usu. in an effort to effectuate legislative intent.

So if may equals must, then must equals may. meaning although you are compelled to have the registration witnessed. it is not binding.

A common misunderstanding when reading law. What it is saying is that the courts have interpreted may to mean must. This does not make must mean may. Sorta like the freeman belief that all corporations are persons therefore all persons are corporations. This is wrong. Your reading stuff in to it what is not there, and it is difficult to comment as some quotes are out of context or with out the full definition.

So is it that we are to be considered chattel, or personal property of the state. to use enjoy and convey as they see fit, by right of granted ownership?

Although a slave is a legal definition of chattle, it can also mean movable property. ie slaves were considered movable property.

That brings up the FMOTL concept of contract law. and again licence fees. etc etc etc there are so many things it's difficult to know where to start.But at least with legal status as a free citizen, you would have the right to opt out. rather than having dominion put upon you as chattel.

Unfortunately the FMOTL concept of contract is wrong....on so many level's. Firstly they believe that all law is contract, which is civil law (made up of contract and tort). This ignores the whole body of criminal law. Key differences being the jurisdiction of criminal and civil courts, the parties involved. Actions in civil courts are brought by private individuals to settle disputes where the claimant aims to sue for damages either for harm suffered or for breach of contract. In criminal cases, the state prosecutes those who are accused of committing a criminal offence. The next and imo most important difference is the standard of proof, beyond all reasonable doubt in criminal cases but only on the balance of probability in civil ones, significantly lower. For these reasons all law is certainly not contract.

The next issue is there seems to be some misunderstanding in some FMOTL circles of what a contract actually is. Basically it consists of offer, acceptance and consideration. An offer is an intention to enter into a legally binding agreement. It must be clear and precise. A significant feature of an offer will be what the terms are. Through various acts such as the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, further terms are implied and incorporated into all contracts. Quid pro quo, both parties must give something however there is no nothing in law that says consideration must be equal. You do not have to get a fair deal. If the terms are lawful, once accepted, are binding on the parties. Acceptance of the offer must also be unconditional, if not it becomes a counter offer.

Only parties to the contract can acquire rights and obligations. All contracts must be entered voluntary to be valid and can not be entered into by deception. Another point that is kinda interesting is a contract is not necessary the document, and many other documents can be incorporated into the contract. Verbal contracts or even non verbal contracts exist also. ie if you buy a newspaper, not a single word may be said, however a contract, granting consumer rights exists between you and seller.

reply to post by Reidar


If one went through there entire life without sighing anything you would be a Sovern person retaining all of your rights. It is when you sign your drivers license you give up the right to unrestricted travel and now pay fines, fees, etc. When you sign your marriage license you give permission for your children to be wards of the state.
When you by food in the store you are now giving up good health for chemically treated food that makes you sick over 20 years making you need the medical Establishment that is the beneficiary of all of the wealth you have accumulated to be sold when you cant take care of yourself.

JakiusFogg

The solution:

Islamic Banking

A better solution would be to have local banks who serve their local region, and not some extra-national entity somewhere in the East coast of the USA or Central Europe.

We used to have local banks like Bradford and Bingley, Prudential, Clydesdale, Alliance and Leicester, who were merchant and personal banks that served their local communities, offered loans and savings accounts at decent interest rates. It's only recently that they were bought out by the international sharks and became mere facades, where all the money is shipped abroad as Wall Street profit.

reply to post by JakiusFogg


Do I star you or will I be marked as a thinker and sent to the concentration camps

reply to post by BlubberyConspiracy


Just being here puts you on the red list!

supergravity
reply to post by Reidar

 

If one went through there entire life without sighing anything you would be a Sovern person retaining all of your rights. It is when you sign your drivers license you give up the right to unrestricted travel and now pay fines, fees, etc. When you sign your marriage license you give permission for your children to be wards of the state.
When you by food in the store you are now giving up good health for chemically treated food that makes you sick over 20 years making you need the medical Establishment that is the beneficiary of all of the wealth you have accumulated to be sold when you cant take care of yourself.

edit on 26-10-2013 by supergravity because: (no reason given)

Contracts can not take away your statutory rights maybe with the exception of non civilians but not sure. Anyway any unlawful terms are void. ie a term that made you a slave or committed you to an illegal act would be void.

JakiusFogg
reply to post by aorAki

 

Thats the beauty about theory. it is just that theory. It is up to you you read, analyse, add too and detract from. but I am not asking you to accept it matter of fact. I am presenting this as a working hypothesis, not a statement of fact.

As was said in my very first paragraph,

Please review this and comment as you see fit.

This is my theory...

Should you be so concerned on the minor details as whether a graphic representation that was supplement to and in no way underpins the main subject and not intended to be statement of being, but more over show a potential tacit link. Are Laurel or Olive leaves. Then it's wonder you missed that small detail.

edit on 16/5/2011 by JakiusFogg because: (no reason given)

I would also add that although I am being critical a lot of what you say would seem the logic conclusion. And your theory raises many valid points. Many may have been raised and decided upon in prior cases. Its a lawyers job in some case to argue points of law and what the law actually means to determine if his clients actions were with in the law. Successful arguments can lead to a change in the understanding of what the law is, if accepted by the court.

In my opinion, to fully understand common law systems, through case law the law is open to the of the courts with in the parameters set by statute. strictly, there should be full separation of powers; the courts in theory should only apply the law as set by parliament. Although through the use of statutory interpretation and deciding the law in non statutory areas (common law principles) the courts do have a degree of law making powers. The main anomaly with this system is as well as going beyond the courts constitutional role, has the potential to create a crime after the event. I.E some areas of law are not even decided upon until a particular case is brought.

Being retrospective in effect, declaratory theory is proposed to solve the problems this creates. Basically judges claim what they only declare the intent of the legislator and do not make new law when setting precedence. This is accepted because Parliament can ultimately remove any presumptions of the law by the courts by passing new legislation. You need to view the legal system as a whole and realize that in common law systems from the legislative process, to case law is a system in constant motion adapting to new circumstance on a case by case basis in an equital way.

That said the state is always going to rely on force to enforce its rules. In order to be a rule it must be enfoceable; the defining feature of a sovereign state is the ability to make its own law. There is no need for a contract or 'strawman' for the law to apply, it would be enforced regardless. In a democracy although not perfect is prefereable to other systems. The only real solution to governance is anarchy. Even then there would still be rules of sorts. IMO that is the pay off for living in society; is that you can never have absolute freedoms and rights end where another's begin even if that is applied to society as a whole.

Although I don't agree with your position, I do enjoy the discussion. Its an interesting topic, and seeing two parts of an argument greatly helps my understanding of the topic. I do not necessary argee with your interpretation of the legal meaning of some words however you do have a good grasp of legal reasoning and how a lawyer would try and pick apart the actual meaning of the law. The fact that you ask for a critique is good practice also, any point of law raised in a court can be challenged. I hope you continue your study of law and although am not too familiar with blacks being in the UK, it is a good place to start. A lot of principles and methodology do remain pretty much unchanged. Even those that do the evolution of how and why the law changed is an important area.

There are similar discussions about registration here www.abovetopsecret.com...
and the birth certificate www.abovetopsecret.com... ,in keeping with the theme of some of the posts in this thread.

JakiusFogg
reply to post by katseyes

 

Well this is the lynch pin and the question I am posing.

Currently the "share" of national debt in the UK is around GBP 36,300 per person.

No yes that is a lot of money, and well outside the means of most people to pay all at once. However we have been paying taxes since we started working, not to mention all the VAT and duties paid on goods and services.

I am willing to bet that if this premise could be proven to be valid. that "free man" sun would be reached well before the statutory retirement age of 60 / 65.

In fact should a person on average wage be paying around GBP 300 a month in Tax NI VAT and Duty. that figure is reached in 10 years. so freedom can be achieved before the age of 30. Which means (if true) 35 years of tax free living until retirement. Meaning that the money that would ordinarily go to the coffers, could go into a national saving scheme for retirement. which in turn would reduce the burden on the public funds for pensions.

But the government is not going to tell you this, if this figure exists. (why turn off a cash cow?) and as always the maxim, ignorance of the law is no defense, regardless of how unethical it is.

However I suspect that more likely would be the figure would be the share per person of the active workforce, and not the population as a whole. But it is a interesting concept to say the least.

Interesting point. Though the state has the power to set taxation at any rate they chose each person does not owe a share of the debt. IE if I earn less than a certain amount, around £9000 pounds a year, I don't pay anything towards this debt nor will I be made to, and still have full use of public services. The figure you arrive at also seems a bit arbitrary. But yeah ultimately the government needs to settle its bonds. It can only do this by raising revenue on taxes on corporate and private individuals. There is academic debate though whether income is profit or weather it should be taxed. ie is working a mutual exchange of labour money. Can profit be described as gaining from another's labor? In any case tax rates are pretty arbitrary and can vary greatly from country to country. Take cigarettes for example.